United States of America v. Alan M. Bartlett

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALAN M. BARTLETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-30087
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00044-RRB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Alan M. Bartlett appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant’s requests for oral
argument are, therefore, denied.
FILED
JAN 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-30087
Bartlett contends that he is entitled to compassionate release and that the
district court erred by denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing. The
district court reasonably concluded that (1) Bartlett failed to establish extraordinary
and compelling reasons for release given his vaccination status and the medical
care available in prison, and (2) relief was not warranted in light of Bartlett’s
history and characteristics, his refusal to accept responsibility for his past criminal
conduct, and the need to protect the community. See id. at 1283-84; see also
United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court
abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported
by the record). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to
hold an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 513 (9th
Cir. 1996). Finally, Bartlett’s assertions that various aspects of his proceedings
were “fake” or fraudulent are unavailing.
Appellant is informed that the docket is correct.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --